4 ms·

In that case, let's talk about a current privacy problem and see if the model OP is advocating helps. One of the ways that Facebook fills out relationship grap

In that case, let's talk about a current privacy problem and see if the model OP is advocating helps. One of the ways that Facebook fills out relationship graphs is by reading contacts. Both I and my brother own the information that we're related to each other. Both I and my brother own my phone number (I didn't make him sign a confidentiality agreement when I gave it to him), so outside of the bounds of common courtesy, I can't force him not to tell anyone else. So if my brother decides to let Facebook scan his phone contacts, he's just giving away information that he owns, which is his right to do. But if information ownership under this model doesn't provide any real protection to stop one of Facebook's primary data gathering techniques, then what's the value in it at all? What privacy infringement would this protect me from? If a store that I walk into could still claim ownership of the fact that I walked in and track my movements everywhere with facial recognition, and a website can still log that I visited and track where my mouse moves, and if they have co-ownership of that information, then they can still sell it to whomever they want. A big issue with information ownership is that in order to make it logically scale, it has to be neutered to the point where it's no longer useful.

dragonwriter 8y ago
You know, if you have a conversation with someone (without an NDA, etc.) they are free to tell anyone about it, but in a number of states they (or anyone acting with their permission) would not be free to record the conversation because of all-party consent laws. I wonder if that's the kind of model that we need to consider expanding into personal data collection in a number of areas. (And maybe reinforcing with separate, affirmative consent requirements for some uses; e.g., I've posted notice and you entered the property may be sufficient consent for video recording used exclusively for normal security purposes, but perhaps not for outside sharing, as targeting, etc.)
- nickpsecurity 8y ago
  "but in a number of states they (or anyone acting with their permission) would not be free to record the conversation because of all-party consent laws." I'm against that due to the power dynamics in place. I'd rather anyone be able to record anyone without saying anything. The whole situation, start to finish, will need to be recorded to make sure they're not cherry picking. I've found that lots of arrogant, evil people will be too cocky to realize someone is recording something or even that folks around them are listening. Gives us a way to deal with more of them. I've known quite a few people that protected themselves that way. I haven't seen a strong argument in terms of practical effects for full disclosure of that. If anything, less people in abusive environments would be able to prove abuse since abusers would hide it second they know someone is recording evidence. So, I'm for rolling back those all-party, consent laws into one-party or no consent. At least for dealing with harms to person recording. We could require consent before publishing something if no provable harm was done. "I wonder if that's the kind of model that we need to consider expanding into personal data collection" Interesting. Not sure about that one. I do prefer it for businesses collecting consumer data given they do most of the abuses. They also have most of the power in this space. "reinforcing with separate, affirmative consent requirements for some uses" They'll mostly just click through the dialogs or whatever. It might still be good for few it helps. I don't know. This is a security feature that fails the most unless they already know ahead of time how valuable or important something is. They already have to want to protect whatever it is. Plus, sacrifice whatever product/service is being offered to them, esp free. We could try it to see what happens, though.

dragonwriter 8y ago

You know, if you have a conversation with someone (without an NDA, etc.) they are free to tell anyone about it, but in a number of states they (or anyone acting with their permission) would not be free to record the conversation because of all-party consent laws. I wonder if that's the kind of model that we need to consider expanding into personal data collection in a number of areas. (And maybe reinforcing with separate, affirmative consent requirements for some uses; e.g., I've posted notice and you entered the property may be sufficient consent for video recording used exclusively for normal security purposes, but perhaps not for outside sharing, as targeting, etc.)

nickpsecurity 8y ago
"but in a number of states they (or anyone acting with their permission) would not be free to record the conversation because of all-party consent laws." I'm against that due to the power dynamics in place. I'd rather anyone be able to record anyone without saying anything. The whole situation, start to finish, will need to be recorded to make sure they're not cherry picking. I've found that lots of arrogant, evil people will be too cocky to realize someone is recording something or even that folks around them are listening. Gives us a way to deal with more of them. I've known quite a few people that protected themselves that way. I haven't seen a strong argument in terms of practical effects for full disclosure of that. If anything, less people in abusive environments would be able to prove abuse since abusers would hide it second they know someone is recording evidence. So, I'm for rolling back those all-party, consent laws into one-party or no consent. At least for dealing with harms to person recording. We could require consent before publishing something if no provable harm was done. "I wonder if that's the kind of model that we need to consider expanding into personal data collection" Interesting. Not sure about that one. I do prefer it for businesses collecting consumer data given they do most of the abuses. They also have most of the power in this space. "reinforcing with separate, affirmative consent requirements for some uses" They'll mostly just click through the dialogs or whatever. It might still be good for few it helps. I don't know. This is a security feature that fails the most unless they already know ahead of time how valuable or important something is. They already have to want to protect whatever it is. Plus, sacrifice whatever product/service is being offered to them, esp free. We could try it to see what happens, though.